that year, pointing out its manifold imperfections, as he thought, and urging the fabrication of other title papers.

When in December, 1849, he received another copy of the same grant, he wrote his letter of the 20th of that month, pointing out the same imperfections in the original, and making the same suggestions as to the fabrication of new papers.

When his correspondents on the 3d and 6th of February, 1850, decline to adopt his suggestions, or follow his advice, saying that in their opinion and Castillero's, the genuine title is good enough, and that they will rely on it, and send him the contract referred to in it, proving the confirmation of the mining title; full of contempt for their judgment, and disappointed that his plans have not been adopted by them, he takes no pains in his reply to conceal his sentiments, and still pertinaciously insists that his advice shall be followed. Such was his letter of the 26th February, 1850.

There are truths which reasoning obscures; because they live nearer to the innate light of mind than arguments can ever approach. If in the course of the foregoing remarks I have attempted arguments to prove axioms, this betrayal into error has been caused by a desire on my part to check the fermentation of spirit, which the investigation of the facts of this case has excited, even to the obscuration of axiomatic truths.

In support then of the genuineness of the Castillo Lanzas grant, we have—

First. The important public and private business transaction between Castillero and the Mexican Government-conducted on behalf of the latter by its Junta de Fomento de Mineriaby its National College of Mining-by its Ministry of Relations and Government, and by its Governor of the Department of California, whose natural termination in Mexico was this grant.

Second. The testimony of Mr. Castillo y Lanzas, that he signed the grant on the day of its date, and that it is in all respects true and genuine.

Third. The testimony of Mr. Velasco, that he wrote the grant, and that in all respects it is true and genuine.

Fourth. The testimony of Mr. Negrete, that he saw it in Mexico in December, 1846; that Castillero then handed it to

him, and he to his lawyer, Mr. Romero, to aid in the draft of the public act of ratification of avio; that it was referred to in said instrument, and copied at the end of it; that he then sent it to Mr. Alex. Forbes, of Tepic; that the document in the archives of the Land Commission is the one he saw in 1846.

Fifth. We have the protocols of the Notary Fuentes, containing the said acts of Castillero's ratifying the McNamara contract, dated 17th December, 1846, where this grant is copied verbatim.

Sixth. We have the testimonio of that instrument made out two days after its execution, signed by Nazario Fuentes, the Notary Public, whose signature and signum are attested by three Notaries Public, by certificate under seal of the National College of Notaries of Mexico, dated 19th December, 1846. In said testimonio this grant is copied.

Seventh. We have a certified copy of the same instrument of ratification issued from the office of the Notary Fuentes, under his hand and seal, on the 6th February, 1847, with a certificate by three Notaries Public, dated on that day and attested by the seal of the National College of Notaries, like the testimonio. In this certified copy our grant again appears. Eighth. We have the testimony of Mr. Villalon, whose name and signum appear on each of the foregoing certificates, declaring that he signed them on their respective dates, and that they are in all respects genuine, and proving the signatures and signa of the other Notaries who signed them, and also the seal of the National College of Notaries affixed to them.

2

Ninth. It is proven that Mr. Walkinshaw, as the agent of Alex. Forbes, came from Tepic to California to take possession of the mine, by virtue of the McNamara lease, confirmed as it had been by Castillero, and that he brought with him a copy of Castillero's ratification, and that he took charge of the mine in April, 1847.

Tenth. We have the testimony of James Alex. Forbes, proving that before the 5th of May, 1847, he had seen a copy of Castillero's said public act of ratification, containing a copy of our two-league grant, and that in his own act of ratification he copied the words used in Castillero's.

Eleventh. We have his letter of the 5th May, 1847, describing this two-league grant, a copy of which he had first seen in the document exhibited to him by Mr. Walkinshaw, and identifying it by his comments and criticisms with absolute certainty.

Twelfth. Between the 5th of May, 1847, and the 20th December, 1849, James A. Forbes in his letters frequently refers to this two-league grant.

Thirteenth. On the 20th December, 1849, he acknowledges the receipt of a Notarial copy of this same grant; and we have the identical copy which he received in evidence, proved by himself to have been received in November, 1849.

By such "a long leveled rule of streaming light," we follow this grant through the record, to the first day of its existence, the 23d May, 1846, to its author the President of Mexico, who signed it with the hand of Castillo y Lanzas, his Minister of Relations, Government and Police.

PART SEVENTH.

FROM THE 26TH FEBRUARY, 1850, TO THE 14TH DECEMBER, 1857, WHEN JAMES ALEXANDER FORBES IS FIRST EXAMINED IN THIS CASE ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES.

This period embraces

First. The arrival of Don Isidoro de la Torré in California, about April, 1850.

Second. The appointment of Capt. H. W. Halleck, as Director of the Mine, in April, 1850.-Trans. 228.

Third. The sale by James A. Forbes to John Parrott, of one of his two barras in the mine for $24,000, on the 9th August, 1850.-Trans. 179.

Com

Fourth. The proceedings in the suit of M. Z. Berreyesa and others vs. James A. Forbes and Robert Walkinshaw. plaint filed 26th Aug. 1850.-Trans. 220.

Fifth. The transfer from the Mayor's office at San José of the original record of registry and possession, in January, 1851,(331 Trans.) 257.

Sixth. The presentation and conduct of the present claim before the Board of Land Commissioners, 30th September, 1852. -Trans. 5 to 129.

Seventh. The sale by James A. Forbes to Wm. E. Barron, of his remaining barra in the mine, for the sum of thirty thousand dollars. Trans. 190.

Eighth. The bankruptcy of James A. Forbes, and his conspiracy with Laurencel to levy black-mail on the New Almaden Company, by frightening them into a compromise.-Trans. 376.

I. The arrival of Don Isidoro de la Torré, as the general agent of the company in April, 1850.

It appears from the correspondence between Barron, Forbes & Co., Alex. Forbes, and James Alex. Forbes, that Mr. de la Torré must have arrived in California about the 11th April, 1850, to take entire charge of the mine, and organize its operations.

We have a letter from James A. Forbes to Mr. de la Torré dated 18th June, 1850, inclosing certain papers belonging to the company, some of which are thus specified :

"One sheet of Mexican stamped paper, of the 5th seal, containing a certified copy of the communication from the Minister of Foreign Relations, relative to the two square leagues of land on New Almaden."

"Six sheets of common paper, containing certified copies of the contract of avio of the mine of New Almaden, including a copy of the document to which the above mentioned sheet refers, certified by the British Consulate at Tepic."

"Seven sheets; seven sheets of Mexican stamped paper of the 4th seal, with certified copies of the original contract of partnership in the mine of New Almaden, dated 2d November, 1845; of the power of attorney from Don José Castro to McNamara, to make the contract of avio; the ratification of the same by D. Andres Castillero, and concession of the two-square leagues; Castro's ratification etc., certified by the American Consulate at Tepic."

The papers just enumerated contain three copies of the Castillero Lanzas two-league grant.

II. Captain Halleck's appointment as Director General of the mine is stated by himself to have been made in March or April, 1850. See his deposition.-Trans. 328.

III. Sale of one barra to John Parrott for $24,000, found in Trans. p. 179.

IV. The proceedings in the suit of M. Z. Berreyesa et al. vs. J. A. Forbes and Robert Walkinshaw.-Trans. 219.

This was an action of trespass, seeking $20,000 damages for wood, timber, limestone, etc., taken by defendants from plaintiffs' land, and not the recovery of possession. The record of this suit derives its only interest from an affidavit made by Capt. Halleck, in answer to a demand of the plaintiffs for a copy and inspection of such documents as the defense intended to rely on. The demand and order of the Court will be found in Transcript, 265. The order was made under the Practice Act of 1850, Sec. 294; Statutes 1850, p. 455. It required the